Section 395 of 440

Complete canonical tutorial. This reader section contains the same teaching body as PWR-213 · Fine-motor teleoperation. Open the Power dossier.

PWR-213 · SUPERVISED full tutorial

Place one virtual or inert object by teleoperation while managing latency, force limits and link loss

A supervised teleoperation simulator moves a virtual peg into a wide socket under declared gain, latency and force limits. The learner progresses from gross alignment to fine placement, responds to a delay change and returns safely after link loss. One constrained placement is not evidence of surgical, industrial or unrestricted teleoperation skill.

What you will produceWith an engineering supervisor, the learner calibrates controls, practises gross then fine positioning, completes a constrained placement and returns safely after a staged link failure.

Method8 numbered Power-specific steps

Practice authorityFull method with qualified supervision where stated

Start step by step Open research dossier

1 · Permission and limits

Know exactly what you may do

You may

Participant choice — Define task and limits: The supervisor sets peg, socket, motion scale, speed, force, collision threshold, latency ceiling and safe home pose.
Learner failure role — Handle link loss: On the staged freeze, release the controller, invoke stop and wait for the remote-side confirmation before any recovery command.
Fine-motor teleoperation outcome review may inspect “Accuracy, force error, time, collisions, workload, latency/failure recovery and unaided/assisted conditions versus direct control” under the configured comparator.

Qualified help is required for

Team-owned gate — Inspect local and remote sides: Check controller neutral, camera views, network, logs, stop, enclosure and absence of people in the remote zone.
Provider-controlled rehearsal — Calibrate direction and scale: Move one axis at a time at low gain, return to neutral and confirm that displayed and remote direction match.
Scheduling owner for Fine-motor teleoperation: the responsible team. Repeat rule: The engineering or clinical team sets repetitions, latency gate, hardware authority and progression. Start in simulation with two gross approaches and one placement; repeat only after error and recovery review.

Never do this from the page alone

Unsafe Fine-motor teleoperation choice: Adapt informally to an unknown delay.
Second failure that ends progression: Push harder when the peg does not enter.
Solo use is barred for Fine-motor teleoperation. Trigger: Stop for force/collision alarm, unusual device motion/noise, pain, dizziness, visual strain or unsafe fatigue.

2 · Get ready

Gather what you need and check the starting conditions

What you need

Declared Fine-motor teleoperation fixture: A teleoperation simulator moves a virtual peg into a wide socket. If approved hardware is used, the peg is foam, the workspace is enclosed and force/speed limits are active.
Setup aid for Inspect local and remote sides: Test neutral, directions, latency, limits, emergency stop, logs and remote-zone clearance.
Fine-motor teleoperation log: Accuracy, force error, time, collisions, workload, latency/failure recovery and unaided/assisted conditions versus direct control; retain Fine-motor teleoperation errors, assistance, stop and fallback.
Teleoperation source table: from “Shared control of a medical robot with haptic guidance”, record task, haptic assistance, operator input, error and force measures. From “Assistive Robotic Manipulation through Shared Autonomy and a Body-Machine Interface”, record user interface, autonomy role, task and support. Use the NIST Privacy Framework for control traces; the engineering supervisor owns latency and force limits.

Before you start

Use an approved simulator or enclosed inert hardware with qualified supervision.
Test neutral, directions, latency, limits, emergency stop, logs and remote-zone clearance.
Start check for Fine-motor teleoperation: The envelope and failure triggers are written before control.
Top-of-sheet stop for Fine-motor teleoperation: Stop for controller drift, reversed axis, latency above threshold, link loss, frozen view, log failure or unexpected remote person/object.

3 · The method

Follow these steps in order

Define task and limits
The supervisor sets peg, socket, motion scale, speed, force, collision threshold, latency ceiling and safe home pose.
Why: The envelope and failure triggers are written before control.
Check: The envelope and failure triggers are written before control.
Inspect local and remote sides
Check controller neutral, camera views, network, logs, stop, enclosure and absence of people in the remote zone.
Why: Both ends report ready and emergency stop works.
Check: Both ends report ready and emergency stop works.
Measure latency
Send a test movement and record command-to-view delay; do not start if it exceeds the protocol threshold.
Why: Current latency is visible to the learner.
Check: Current latency is visible to the learner.
Calibrate direction and scale
Move one axis at a time at low gain, return to neutral and confirm that displayed and remote direction match.
Why: No axis is reversed and neutral produces no drift.
Check: No axis is reversed and neutral produces no drift.
Practise gross positioning
Move to a marked approach box without touching the socket; stop and re-centre between trials.
Why: Approach succeeds within the collision limit.
Check: Approach succeeds within the collision limit.
Perform fine placement
Reduce gain, align the peg, advance in small increments and stop on unexpected resistance rather than adding force.
Why: Peg enters the socket within endpoint and force criteria.
Check: Peg enters the socket within endpoint and force criteria.
Handle link loss
On the staged freeze, release the controller, invoke stop and wait for the remote-side confirmation before any recovery command.
Why: The device remains or returns to the declared safe state.
Check: The device remains or returns to the declared safe state.
Compare and debrief
Record endpoint error, time, corrections, collisions, force, workload and recovery versus direct or unaided simulation; supervisor decides progression.
Why: Accuracy is not reported without latency and failure recovery.
Check: Accuracy is not reported without latency and failure recovery.

4 · Worked example

See the whole method used once

Scenario

A teleoperation simulator moves a virtual peg into a wide socket. If approved hardware is used, the peg is foam, the workspace is enclosed and force/speed limits are active.

Walkthrough

The supervisor sets a two-millimetre endpoint target, low force limit and 150-millisecond latency ceiling.
The learner tests 80-millisecond latency and calibrates x, y and z direction with no neutral drift.
Two gross approaches reach the marked box without collision; gain is then reduced.
The learner aligns the foam peg and inserts it with one correction and no force alarm.
The view freezes on the next trial; the learner releases the controller and calls STOP instead of continuing commands.
The remote side confirms safe state, returns home and the log records time, error, force, workload and recovery.

Result

The learner completes one constrained placement and responds correctly to link loss. This does not establish surgical, industrial or real-world fine-motor teleoperation.

5 · Right and wrong

Compare correct or safer execution with the common wrong version

Right and wrong comparison
Moment	Right / safer	Wrong / riskier	Why it matters
Latency in latency-gated peg placement	Measure before each run and stop above threshold.	Adapt informally to an unknown delay.	Delayed feedback can cause oscillation and collision.
Gain in latency-gated peg placement	Use coarse control for approach and lower gain for placement.	Keep high gain to finish faster.	Small controller errors become large remote motion.
Resistance in latency-gated peg placement	Stop and inspect the force trace and camera view.	Push harder when the peg does not enter.	Misalignment can raise force and damage the target.
Link loss	Release, stop and await remote confirmation.	Continue commanding into a frozen view.	Queued or unseen movement can occur later.

6 · Common mistakes

Spot the error and apply the correction

Common mistakes and corrections
Mistake	Fix
Adapt informally to an unknown delay.	Use a test pulse and protocol limit.
Keep high gain to finish faster.	Reduce scale before entering the fine zone.
Push harder when the peg does not enter.	Back out under the supervisor’s rule and realign.
Continue commanding into a frozen view.	Clear commands and recover from home state.

7 · Practice

Turn the steps into a usable skill

First session

Latency-gated peg visit: A teleoperation simulator moves a virtual peg into a wide socket. If approved hardware is used, the peg is foam, the workspace is enclosed and force/speed limits are active.
Local and remote readiness: Inspect local and remote sides: Check controller neutral, camera views, network, logs, stop, enclosure and absence of people in the remote zone.
Axis and scale calibration: Calibrate direction and scale: Move one axis at a time at low gain, return to neutral and confirm that displayed and remote direction match.
Gross approach box: Practise gross positioning: Move to a marked approach box without touching the socket; stop and re-centre between trials.
Frozen-view recovery: Handle link loss: On the staged freeze, release the controller, invoke stop and wait for the remote-side confirmation before any recovery command.

Repeat plan

The engineering or clinical team sets repetitions, latency gate, hardware authority and progression. Start in simulation with two gross approaches and one placement; repeat only after error and recovery review.

Progress when

The envelope and failure triggers are written before control.
Both ends report ready and emergency stop works.
Current latency is visible to the learner.
Latency stays within the gate, no collision or force breach occurs, endpoint error meets criterion, link-loss recovery works and workload remains acceptable.

Do not progress when

Do not continue while this error remains: Adapt informally to an unknown delay.
Pause until this correction works: Reduce scale before entering the fine zone.
This Fine-motor teleoperation stop ends the block: Stop for controller drift, reversed axis, latency above threshold, link loss, frozen view, log failure or unexpected remote person/object.

8 · Check the result

Measure what changed

Accuracy, force error, time, collisions, workload, latency/failure recovery and unaided/assisted conditions versus direct control

How: Configured fixture: A teleoperation simulator moves a virtual peg into a wide socket. If approved hardware is used, the peg is foam, the workspace is enclosed and force/speed limits are active. The provider logs “Inspect local and remote sides”, every “Practise gross positioning” result, the “Handle link loss” response and Accuracy, force error, time, collisions, workload, latency/failure recovery and unaided/assisted conditions versus direct control. For each peg attempt, record latency, supervisor prompts, collision or force-limit events, link state and workload; compare fine placement only among trials with the same simulator gain and delay.

Good result: Latency stays within the gate, no collision or force breach occurs, endpoint error meets criterion, link-loss recovery works and workload remains acceptable.

This does not prove: Boundary for Fine-motor teleoperation: “Accuracy, force error, time, collisions, workload, latency/failure recovery and unaided/assisted conditions versus direct control” describes only A teleoperation simulator moves a virtual peg into a wide socket. If approved hardware is used, the peg is foam, the workspace is enclosed and force/speed limits are active. It cannot establish “A robot instantly gives flawless surgical hands”.

Self-check

Without the example, demonstrate: The envelope and failure triggers are written before control.
Find the fault in this attempt: “Adapt informally to an unknown delay.” Apply “Use a test pulse and protocol limit.”; what changes?
What evidence in the completed record shows that this is wrong: “Keep high gain to finish faster.”?
Fine-motor teleoperation stop decision: Stop for controller drift, reversed axis, latency above threshold, link loss, frozen view, log failure or unexpected remote person/object.

9 · Stop, adapt or get help

Keep the safety boundary practical

Stop and get help

Stop for controller drift, reversed axis, latency above threshold, link loss, frozen view, log failure or unexpected remote person/object.
Stop for force/collision alarm, unusual device motion/noise, pain, dizziness, visual strain or unsafe fatigue.
Do not transfer this lesson to surgery, hazardous materials, public robots or live industrial equipment.

Accessibility and adaptations

Adapt controller, gain, camera view, haptic/visual cue, seating and dwell time through the supervisor.
Use a digital twin, larger socket or step-by-step mode before any physical device.

10 · Evidence and limits

Why these instructions are here

primary research
Registered support for Fine-motor teleoperation: “Shared control of a medical robot with haptic guidance”. It bears on Accuracy, force error, time, collisions, workload, latency/failure recovery and unaided/assisted conditions versus direct control inside the Fine-motor teleoperation fixture. It does not validate “A robot instantly gives flawless surgical hands”.
Shared control of a medical robot with haptic guidance
primary research
Constraint for Fine-motor teleoperation, drawn from “Assistive Robotic Manipulation through Shared Autonomy and a Body-Machine Interface”: Small controlled studies do not establish patient benefit, daily-life independence or safe performance when guidance or network links fail.
Assistive Robotic Manipulation through Shared Autonomy and a Body-Machine Interface
official guidance
Privacy design for Fine-motor teleoperation: minimise approved data in “A teleoperation simulator moves a virtual peg into a wide socket. If approved hardware is used, the peg is foam, the workspace is enclosed and force/speed limits are active.” Keep Fine-motor teleoperation provenance and access visible before interpreting Accuracy, force error, time, collisions, workload, latency/failure recovery and unaided/assisted conditions versus direct control.
NIST Privacy Framework: A Tool for Improving Privacy Through Enterprise Risk Management, Version 1.0

Limits

Fine-motor teleoperation boundary: interpret “Accuracy, force error, time, collisions, workload, latency/failure recovery and unaided/assisted conditions versus direct control” only for A teleoperation simulator moves a virtual peg into a wide socket. If approved hardware is used, the peg is foam, the workspace is enclosed and force/speed limits are active.
A successful result does not establish “A robot instantly gives flawless surgical hands”.
Fine-motor teleoperation limiting finding: Small controlled studies do not establish patient benefit, daily-life independence or safe performance when guidance or network links fail.
No perfect-performance claim for Fine-motor teleoperation: the evidence register does not make “Accuracy, force error, time, collisions, workload, latency/failure recovery and unaided/assisted conditions versus direct control” universal, consequence-free or flawless in A teleoperation simulator moves a virtual peg into a wide socket. If approved hardware is used, the peg is foam, the workspace is enclosed and force/speed limits are active.
Scope remains Fine-motor teleoperation: A teleoperation simulator moves a virtual peg into a wide socket. If approved hardware is used, the peg is foam, the workspace is enclosed and force/speed limits are active. Recheck the comparator, support and “Accuracy, force error, time, collisions, workload, latency/failure recovery and unaided/assisted conditions versus direct control” after any configuration change.

Open the complete canonical research register

Primary empirical supportLimiting / contrary
Shared control of a medical robot with haptic guidance
Linfei Xiong; Chin Boon Chng; Chee Kong Chui; Peiwu Yu; Yao Li · 2017 · Primary research
Primary empirical supportLimiting / contrary
Assistive Robotic Manipulation through Shared Autonomy and a Body-Machine Interface
Siddarth Jain; Ali Farshchiansadegh; Alexander Broad; Farnaz Abdollahi; Ferdinando Mussa-Ivaldi; Brenna D. Argall · 2015 · Primary research
Limiting / contraryOfficial boundary context
NIST Privacy Framework: A Tool for Improving Privacy Through Enterprise Risk Management, Version 1.0
National Institute of Standards and Technology · 2020 · Official standard
Limiting / contraryOfficial boundary context
Cybersecurity in Medical Devices: Quality Management System Considerations and Content of Premarket Submissions
United States Food and Drug Administration · 2026 · Official guidance

Read the complete evidence interpretation on the Power dossier.

Tutorial delivery controls

Learn, adapt, troubleshoot and resume

Estimated timeEstimated 13 min reading; practical time is provider-set

DifficultyIntermediate

EquipmentSpecialist equipment

SpaceRoom-scale practice space

Method qualityComprehensive10 of 10 structural checks present. Automated method-readiness band; human editorial sign-off is separate.

Evidence contextG4; Detailed research depthScientific support is evaluated separately from teaching-method structure.

Editorial reviewPending manual sign-offNo human approval is claimed until reviewer, date and content hash are recorded.

Your tutorial progress0 of 8 steps complete

0 of 8 steps complete

Download learner worksheet

Progress is saved only in this browser on this device.

Step-by-step learner mode

Each activity includes its success check, a nearby accessible alternative and an “I’m stuck” correction path. Alternatives preserve the target where possible; when they change the task, Titan labels them as related rather than equivalent.

Define task and limits

The supervisor sets peg, socket, motion scale, speed, force, collision threshold, latency ceiling and safe home pose.

Why this step exists

The envelope and failure triggers are written before control.

Success check

The envelope and failure triggers are written before control.

I’m stuck on this step

Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “The supervisor sets peg, socket, motion scale, speed, force, collision threshold, latency ceiling and safe home pose.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.

Possible snag: Push harder when the peg does not enter.
Correction: Back out under the supervisor’s rule and realign.
Possible snag: Continue commanding into a frozen view.
Correction: Clear commands and recover from home state.

Stop / get help: Stop for controller drift, reversed axis, latency above threshold, link loss, frozen view, log failure or unexpected remote person/object.

Mark step 1 complete

Inspect local and remote sides

Check controller neutral, camera views, network, logs, stop, enclosure and absence of people in the remote zone.

Why this step exists

Both ends report ready and emergency stop works.

Success check

Both ends report ready and emergency stop works.

I’m stuck on this step

Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Check controller neutral, camera views, network, logs, stop, enclosure and absence of people in the remote zone.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.

Possible snag: The result from “Check controller neutral, camera views, network, logs, stop, enclosure and absence of people in the remote zone.” does not yet meet this declared check: Both ends report ready and emergency stop works.
Correction: Return to the start of “Inspect local and remote sides”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “Both ends report ready and emergency stop works.”

Stop / get help: Stop for controller drift, reversed axis, latency above threshold, link loss, frozen view, log failure or unexpected remote person/object.

Mark step 2 complete

Measure latency

Send a test movement and record command-to-view delay; do not start if it exceeds the protocol threshold.

Why this step exists

Current latency is visible to the learner.

Success check

Current latency is visible to the learner.

I’m stuck on this step

Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Send a test movement and record command-to-view delay; do not start if it exceeds the protocol threshold.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.

Possible snag: Adapt informally to an unknown delay.
Correction: Use a test pulse and protocol limit.

Stop / get help: Stop for controller drift, reversed axis, latency above threshold, link loss, frozen view, log failure or unexpected remote person/object.

Mark step 3 complete

Calibrate direction and scale

Move one axis at a time at low gain, return to neutral and confirm that displayed and remote direction match.

Why this step exists

No axis is reversed and neutral produces no drift.

Success check

No axis is reversed and neutral produces no drift.

I’m stuck on this step

Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Move one axis at a time at low gain, return to neutral and confirm that displayed and remote direction match.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.

Possible snag: The result from “Move one axis at a time at low gain, return to neutral and confirm that displayed and remote direction match.” does not yet meet this declared check: No axis is reversed and neutral produces no drift.
Correction: Return to the start of “Calibrate direction and scale”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “No axis is reversed and neutral produces no drift.”

Stop / get help: Stop for controller drift, reversed axis, latency above threshold, link loss, frozen view, log failure or unexpected remote person/object.

Mark step 4 complete

Practise gross positioning

Move to a marked approach box without touching the socket; stop and re-centre between trials.

Why this step exists

Approach succeeds within the collision limit.

Success check

Approach succeeds within the collision limit.

I’m stuck on this step

Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Move to a marked approach box without touching the socket; stop and re-centre between trials.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.

Possible snag: The result from “Move to a marked approach box without touching the socket; stop and re-centre between trials.” does not yet meet this declared check: Approach succeeds within the collision limit.
Correction: Return to the start of “Practise gross positioning”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “Approach succeeds within the collision limit.”

Stop / get help: Stop for controller drift, reversed axis, latency above threshold, link loss, frozen view, log failure or unexpected remote person/object.

Mark step 5 complete

Perform fine placement

Reduce gain, align the peg, advance in small increments and stop on unexpected resistance rather than adding force.

Why this step exists

Peg enters the socket within endpoint and force criteria.

Success check

Peg enters the socket within endpoint and force criteria.

I’m stuck on this step

Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Reduce gain, align the peg, advance in small increments and stop on unexpected resistance rather than adding force.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.

Possible snag: Keep high gain to finish faster.
Correction: Reduce scale before entering the fine zone.

Stop / get help: Stop for controller drift, reversed axis, latency above threshold, link loss, frozen view, log failure or unexpected remote person/object.

Mark step 6 complete

Handle link loss

On the staged freeze, release the controller, invoke stop and wait for the remote-side confirmation before any recovery command.

Why this step exists

The device remains or returns to the declared safe state.

Success check

The device remains or returns to the declared safe state.

I’m stuck on this step

Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “On the staged freeze, release the controller, invoke stop and wait for the remote-side confirmation before any recovery command.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.

Possible snag: The result from “On the staged freeze, release the controller, invoke stop and wait for the remote-side confirmation before any recovery command.” does not yet meet this declared check: The device remains or returns to the declared safe state.
Correction: Return to the start of “Handle link loss”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The device remains or returns to the declared safe state.”

Stop / get help: Stop for controller drift, reversed axis, latency above threshold, link loss, frozen view, log failure or unexpected remote person/object.

Mark step 7 complete

Compare and debrief

Record endpoint error, time, corrections, collisions, force, workload and recovery versus direct or unaided simulation; supervisor decides progression.

Why this step exists

Accuracy is not reported without latency and failure recovery.

Success check

Accuracy is not reported without latency and failure recovery.

I’m stuck on this step

Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Record endpoint error, time, corrections, collisions, force, workload and recovery versus direct or unaided simulation; supervisor decides progression.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.

Possible snag: The result from “Record endpoint error, time, corrections, collisions, force, workload and recovery versus direct or unaided simulation; supervisor decides progression.” does not yet meet this declared check: Accuracy is not reported without latency and failure recovery.
Correction: Return to the start of “Compare and debrief”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “Accuracy is not reported without latency and failure recovery.”

Stop / get help: Stop for controller drift, reversed axis, latency above threshold, link loss, frozen view, log failure or unexpected remote person/object.

Mark step 8 complete

Correct versus incorrect execution

These accessible process diagrams are built from the tutorial’s own right/wrong teaching. They are not anatomical illustrations and do not add technique beyond the canonical tutorial.

Latency in latency-gated peg placement — Delayed feedback can cause oscillation and collision.

Correct / safer

Measure before each run and stop above threshold.

Wrong / riskier

Adapt informally to an unknown delay.

Gain in latency-gated peg placement — Small controller errors become large remote motion.

Correct / safer

Use coarse control for approach and lower gain for placement.

Wrong / riskier

Keep high gain to finish faster.

Resistance in latency-gated peg placement — Misalignment can raise force and damage the target.

Correct / safer

Stop and inspect the force trace and camera view.

Wrong / riskier

Push harder when the peg does not enter.

Link loss — Queued or unseen movement can occur later.

Correct / safer

Release, stop and await remote confirmation.

Wrong / riskier

Continue commanding into a frozen view.

Method-structure checklist

10 of 10 structural checks present

Ordered, Power-specific instructions — present
Every activity has a success check — present
Materials or supplied records are declared — present
Measurement or assessment rule is present — present
Tutorial-specific troubleshooting is present — present
Stopping or escalation boundary is present — present
Every activity has an adjacent alternative — present
Correct-versus-incorrect comparison is present — present
Evidence context is bound to the Power record — present
Planning metadata is present — present

The method-readiness band and presence checklist assess tutorial presentation and are separate from evidence quality for the underlying Power. They are automated editorial aids, not human approval.

Manual editorial sign-off: Pending. This tutorial must not display a human-approved state until an identified editor signs the exact content hash.